Matt Araiza accused of rape, served with a lawsuit.

[SDS]

Now that Matt is no longer with the Bills, and with the season upon us, this sensitive topic shouldn’t really be bubbling up in front of peoples faces every time someone wants to make a new comment or there’s a news update. I’m going to move this to off-the-wall and let people continue the discussion there…

[Virgil]

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

Now that Matt is no longer with the Bills, and with the season upon us, this sensitive topic shouldn’t really be bubbling up in front of peoples faces every time someone wants to make a new comment or there’s a news update. I’m going to move this to off-the-wall and let people continue the discussion there…

 

But my anger and rage should take priority over everything else going on, Bills related or not

[nedboy7]

46 minutes ago, Fred Slacks said:

Just to be clear in the court of law Matt doesn’t need to prove he is innocent. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove he is guilty. I think this is why there is such a polarizing opinion. He’s not guilty of this crime until he’s proven to be guilty.
Everyone assumes he is guilty and should suffer. However the reality is unless the plaintiff can prove Araiza was in the room and raped her then it’s pretty much moot point. I do think a jury however will lean towards the plaintiff because the suit is such a disturbing claim. 
 

In the suit though there’s a lot of speculation like it says Araiza should have known she was drunk, etc. It also says he told her to have sex with him and she did. Does it actually say he raped her?  I never read it that way. The claim is that he led her back into the room where she was gang raped. 
 

So based off her own diary she contradicts herself that she doesn’t remember who was there or who brought her to the room. But I’m the suit it says Araiza brought her to the room as well as should have known she was drunk. 
 

I get the feeling the attorney is fishing for more information/cooperation from Araiza to help piece details together that he believes only Araiza can help confirm. 
 

This next part is all pure speculation. The feeling I get from this whole suit is that Araiza was there, had sex with the girl (as he admitted to) and may possibly know what happened after he hooked up with her. I get the vibe that he probably knew about or became aware about what happened afterwards. That is why they are going after him. 
 

I also have strong feelings about a 17 year old girl at a college party at a house on campus. I don’t fault him for that personally. 
 

However if he was aware of the gang rape I think he should have informed. That’s not something to stay quiet about. If he was involved he should be prosecuted criminally.  His life will be ruined.  If he wasn’t involved I hope the plaintiff’s attorney loses his license for they way he destroyed this kids life. I will wait judgement until this sees it’s day in court. 
 

I wonder why San Diego PD hasn’t moved forward or made a statement about any of this?  I wonder if the civil case helps or ruins any criminal case they had been working/building. 

You complain about speculations then present us with yours.  You have strong feelings about a 17 year old at a party?  Like what feelings?  And what do you not fault him for?  Some weird takes there. 

[Beck Water]

21 minutes ago, T master said:

Sorry you are correct i just read the definition for the word woke with that said the cancel culture is all over this situation .

 

I do agree it isn't just a far left thing it is society in general today and the world rather than being innocent until proven guilty with this & many other things today are exactly backwards from what it is and judgement is handed out before evidence proving innocents or guilt has been established .

 

And in some cases it can ruin a persons life or if bad enough & some one takes their life because of the social pressures & preconceived notion that the person is guilty which some people are that weak & that is a huge tragedy !

 

So i choose to rather than jump on board saying that he is guilty allow the investigation help to prove one way or the other rather than jumping to a conclusion unless of course like the Watson case you have some 24+ people saying the same thing then i in that case had a tendency to lean toward those peoples testimonies .

 

Things such as this should be used as a learning experience to not be so quick to judge because there are those out there that are looking for a pay day I'm in no way saying that is what is happening here but history shows that it can & has before  .

 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/03/a-new-espn-film-exposes-the-real-villains-in-the-duke-lacrosse-case.html 

 

This is a better post.  Absolutely Araiza should be treated as "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".  People who are all over social media (and even regular media members) clamoring that the Bills should have cut him immediately after the plaintiff's lawyer called them because he's a "rapist" are despicable IMO.  Some media clamoring that the Bills should have summarily and immediately cut Araiza's ass when they got the lawyer's phone call are disturbing.  

 

How would those reporters feel if I called their boss making serious allegations and they denied them, but were immediately dismissed with no investigation? Unfairly treated, I believe.

 

That said, as far as remaining employed in a particular job, no one has a right to that.  It's always gonna about what benefit you bring to your employer vs. what you cost them in terms of lost time, and organizational distraction.   At best, with this hanging over him Araiza is going to need to divide his time between being the Bills punter vs legal defense, and even even less frenzied, more even-handed media coverage would be a distraction.  So for the Bills to cut him after trying to learn what they could for 3-4 weeks is IMO the right choice for the Bills, given they had no "administrative leave" option available to them.

 

The problem with terms like "cancel culture" is that it's a politicized buzzword used to lay claim to a moral "high ground" of being discriminated against and victimized, but usually inequitably applied to one side of a situation - and that, the side that is still the minority.

 

"Culture" is roughly defined as the "predominant attitudes and beliefs, behaviors, and customs that characterize a group".  Despite the current despicable feeding frenzy against Matt Araiza (and I guess his family, sadly), our "culture" is still strongly weighted, overall, against people who experience rape or sexual assault.  Out of 1000 sexual assaults, 975 perpetrators will go unpunished.  Nationwide, there's still a major problem of people who allege rape or sexual assault not being taken seriously.

 

That's what predominates still, so THAT'S the culture. 

 

"Cancel culture" doesn't just mean "I am being unfairly portrayed as guilty and already convicted when I haven't even been charged with a crime" or even "whackadoodle nut jobs are threatening me".  This is 100% happening to Araiza and his family and I find it despicable.

 

Calling this "cancel culture" is that it implies there's a norm of singling out alleged rapists or abusers for unfair treatment.  There is not.   Historically and even today, alleged rape or sexual assault victims whose names become public are subjected to intense social media harassment and strongly biased media coverage (the latter is changing, but slowly and unevenly).  They are called sluts, "out to get" the accused, money-grubbing - and yes, they and their families receive death threats and threats of violence.   "Victim blaming" is still A Thing.  

 

FBI research estimating that 2% of rape accusations are false.  Other sources may put the number as high as 10% - still a low fraction.  Think about that - the Duke lacrosse case has become canonical, but for every Duke lacrosse case, 90 to 98% of the accusations are real - INCLUDING accusations where LEO initially disbelieved the victim, accused her of false report, and were later incontrovertibly proven wrong.

 

[Fred Slacks]

1 minute ago, nedboy7 said:

You complain about speculations then present us with yours.  You have strong feelings about a 17 year old at a party?  Like what feelings?  And what do you not fault him for?  Some weird takes there. 

I did speculate. Sorry if that was confusing. I tried to separate that so it wouldn’t be taken out of context. I should have just kept that part out. 
 

I have strong feelings about a 17 year old showing up to a college party. My strong feelings about that are that there’s no way you can make me believe that she was telling people she was 17.  That is my strong feeling. Not a fact obviously.  
High school girls don’t go to college parties and say they are in high school. I suppose that is not a fact and is speculation but I don’t feel like it’s a stretch to agree on this. 
 

That is what I was trying to say about that point. 

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

Araiza's attorney said that Matt was aware of the accusations in the late fall of 2021. 

 

There is no proof yet that he was aware that he was under police investigation. However, the university was informed. The police conducted pretext calls and they executed search warrants seizing terrabytes of data. 

 

Did they get his phone and computer without him knowing? 

 

 

Did they seize his phone and computer?  I hadn't heard they did.  Did his attorney say that?  (I'll be frank - I can't stomach watching either attorney).

 

But even if they did.... when months went by with no further action, Araiza may have believed the investigation had ended  and there was nothing to disclose.  That would be a naive belief, but how many 21 yr olds are wise in the ways of the criminal justice system?

[nedboy7]

Just now, Fred Slacks said:

I did speculate. Sorry if that was confusing. I tried to separate that so it wouldn’t be taken out of context. I should have just kept that part out. 
 

I have strong feelings about a 17 year old showing up to a college party. My strong feelings about that are that there’s no way you can make me believe that she was telling people she was 17.  That is my strong feeling. Not a fact obviously.  
High school girls don’t go to college parties and say they are in high school. I suppose that is not a fact and is speculation but I don’t feel like it’s a stretch to agree on this. 
 

That is what I was trying to say about that point. 

 

I hear you.  It is probably not smart.  I wouldn't want my daughter at a party of this type.  Telling someone you are not 17 has nothing to do with being raped however.  And lots of people are triggered by how these types of cases are handled.  For both sides of the story. Anyways I get your point. 

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, What a Tuel said:

Go to Gilleon's twitter and read the full text convo. He posted it himself, but it reads like an extortion attempt. Now that is not to say Araiza is innocent but more a statement on the integrity of the pay me to shut up civil justice system in the country.

 

I agree, it did seem as though he was seeking a cash settlement at the end of July from what he posted then. 

Now he's all about vindicating the victim, never money. 

It's why I say I can't read this guy

Maybe what he's after is maximizing his 8 minutes of Fame.

[Fred Slacks]

4 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I hear you.  It is probably not smart.  I wouldn't want my daughter at a party of this type.  Telling someone you are not 17 has nothing to do with being raped however.  And lots of people are triggered by how these types of cases are handled.  For both sides of the story. Anyways I get your point. 

100% agree. I also think this story is so intense because it’s beyond rape. She is a legging that it was a gang rape which means multiple people are involved if that is the case.

 

separate sidenote my wife and I went and saw a comedian at SDSU somewhere around this time. It was seriously like walking through a playboy mansion style party. We saw the comedian on campus at a stadium style theater. It was John Mulaney. I remember leaving the outdoor theater and walking to our car. It definitely was not an environment I would want my daughter at. Crazy Mardi Graz type environment. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Wow. The peeps on big board are sure grumpy about this.  How hard is to look away? 😏 

 

7 minutes ago, Fred Slacks said:

100% agree. I also think this story is so intense because it’s beyond rape. She is a legging that it was a gang rape which means multiple people are involved if that is the case.

 

separate sidenote my wife and I went and saw a comedian at SDSU somewhere around this time. It was seriously like walking through a playboy mansion style party. We saw the comedian on campus at a stadium style theater. It was John Mulaney. I remember leaving the outdoor theater and walking to our car. It definitely was not an environment I would want my daughter at. Crazy Mardi Graz type environment. 

AND she was led to the gang rape by Araiza... 

[RoyBatty is alive]

55 minutes ago, SDS said:

Now that Matt is no longer with the Bills, and with the season upon us, this sensitive topic shouldn’t really be bubbling up in front of peoples faces every time someone wants to make a new comment or there’s a news update. I’m going to move this to off-the-wall and let people continue the discussion there…

good call

[Beck Water]

Just saw an opinion piece in a National newspaper actually making a comparison between the Bills failing to immediately cut Araiza  the moment a lawyer called them with allegations of sexual assault, and BYU failing to take immediate action when a Black volleyball player was audibly taunted with racial epithets during a match on BYU's home court.

 

Let's review:

Many people including the BYU coach, AD, refs, and players hear someone in the stands taunting a VB opponent with racial epithets including n****r, and fail to take timely action

=

Bills receive unsubstantiated allegation against their Hispanic descent punter and decide to get his side/investigate as best they can before cutting him

 

I.  Can't.  Even.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Fred Slacks said:

. 

 

This next part is all pure speculation. The feeling I get from this whole suit is that Araiza was there, had sex with the girl (as he admitted to) and may possibly know what happened after he hooked up with her. I get the vibe that he probably knew about or became aware about what happened afterwards. That is why they are going after him. 
 

I also have strong feelings about a 17 year old girl at a college party at a house on campus. I don’t fault him for that personally. 
 

However if he was aware of the gang rape I think he should have informed. That’s not something to stay quiet about. If he was involved he should be prosecuted criminally.  His life will be ruined.  If he wasn’t involved I hope the plaintiff’s attorney loses his license for they way he destroyed this kids life. I will wait judgement until this sees it’s day in court. 
 

I wonder why San Diego PD hasn’t moved forward or made a statement about any of this?  I wonder if the civil case helps or ruins any criminal case they had been working/building. 

I erased the first part of your quote because I mostly agree, have no major exceptions or think certain parts are moot.  To the parts I left in:

 

1. We have no idea if Araiza admitted to having sex with her.  The only information pointing at that comes from the plaintiff’s attorney’s account of a phone call that he says took place between Araiza and the victim.  That is not an admission of anything by Araiza whether some reporter asking Beane stupid questions thinks so or not.

 

2. To me a 17 year old going to a party like that is bad judgement and neither 17 year old nor college campus partygoers exactly have reputations for good judgement but if I’m passing out blame for what may have happened the 17 year old gets .0000000000000000000000000004000000003%.

 

3. If he had nothing to do with a gang rape that actually occurred but was aware of it and did nothing, I agree that he is someone to be held in very low regard regardless of his young age or the circumstances. He should also be charged with obstruction of justice and/or anything else that applies and get a 400 pound cell mate.   I also agree on the lawyer’s fate if these assertions prove untrue.  No one except the involved parties…..and even some of them may not remember…..may EVER know the whole truth there.  Yet the reporter mob expects the Bills “investigative skills” to be better.  It’s. A. Joke.

 

4. I’m not absolving the police but at the same time I think the expectations here are a bit unrealistic.  I certainly understand the frustration of the victim wrt the timeline but the press/public stomping their feet three minutes after they find out….and have no verifiable context….is absurd.  SDPD is in no place to share any details of anything so we’re simply left with people’s ignorant theories and conspiracies piling up and SDPD, Beane, campus police, Araiza, McD, and I’m sure a longer list are defined as somewhere between totally incompetent and the devil incarnate by reporters who went to journalism school for years but never learned the meaning of the two word phrase “direct quote”.  

 

The above things don’t point to a heathy society.

 

[Fred Slacks]

15 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I erased the first part of your quote because I mostly agree, have no major exceptions or think certain parts are moot.  To the parts I left in:

 

1. We have no idea if Araiza admitted to having sex with her.  The only information pointing at that comes from the plaintiff’s attorney’s account of a phone call that he says took place between Araiza and the victim.  That is not an admission of anything by Araiza whether some reporter asking Beane stupid questions thinks so or not.

 

2. To me a 17 year old going to a party like that is bad judgement and neither 17 year old nor college campus partygoers exactly have reputations for good judgement but if I’m passing out blame for what may have happened the 17 year old gets .0000000000000000000000000004000000003%.

 

3. If he had nothing to do with a gang rape that actually occurred but was aware of it and did nothing, I agree that he is someone to be held in very low regard regardless of his young age or the circumstances. He should also be charged with obstruction of justice and/or anything else that applies and get a 400 pound cell mate.   I also agree on the lawyer’s fate if these assertions prove untrue.  No one except the involved parties…..and even some of them may not remember…..may EVER know the whole truth there.  Yet the reporter mob expects the Bills “investigative skills” to be better.  It’s. A. Joke.

 

4. I’m not absolving the police but at the same time I think the expectations here are a bit unrealistic.  I certainly understand the frustration of the victim wrt the timeline but the press/public stomping their feet three minutes after they find out….and have no verifiable context….is absurd.  SDPD is in no place to share any details of anything so we’re simply left with people’s ignorant theories and conspiracies piling up and SDPD, Beane, campus police, Araiza, McD, and I’m sure a longer list are defined as somewhere between totally incompetent and the devil incarnate by reporters who went to journalism school for years but never learned the meaning of the two word phrase “direct quote”.  

 

The above things don’t point to a heathy society.

 

With regards to #1 there is an interview Araiza’s attorney did on a television news station where he states Araiza did have sex with her under the context that he thought she was of age. I can’t recall if he said he thought she went to college or just that he was told she was 18. I believe there’s a link to that interview within the first 6 pages of this topic. 
 

A lot of back and forth on this board though that I don’t believe is what was stated. That part I did hear directly though in the interview. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

That would be damning if true.  Araiza's lawyer's story is that Araiza didn't realize there was an ongoing criminal investigation until after the June 3rd article in the LA Times, and that he didn't realize a civil suit was a possibility until July

 

Which is why he didn't tell teams about the incident pre-draft

 

If he knew it was a pending issue before he was drafted and didn't inform teams, I think that would be a violation of some of the agreements the prospects sign with the NFL and with teams.

 

What I think Gilleon means is that a settlement was discussed during training camp.  Araiza was already a preseason member of the Bills but not their presumptive regular-season punter.

What, exactly, would be "damning" about it if true?

 

 

[Gugny]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What, exactly, would be "damning" about it if true?

 

 

 

It would show two things:

 

1.  The Araiza camp tried to pay for this to go away.

2.  This isn't a money grab by the accuser.

[Beck Water]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What, exactly, would be "damning" about it if true?

 

If it were true that Araiza tried to settle a pending civil suit pre-draft in March or April, it would show that he was aware there were pending allegations against him (criminal and civil)

and

That he (per Beane) did not disclose them to the NFL or to teams

 

Araiza's lawyer has been presenting his client as transparent, truthful, up-front, and timely in his disclosures with the Bills.

 

It would contradict that

 

Note that I don't believe it to be true.  I think Araiza knew there was an investigation last October, but hadn't heard anything (criminal or civil) in months, and (somewhat naively) figured that it had been completed with no charges or other fallout during the draft process.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Beck Water

[aristocrat]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

If it were true that Araiza tried to settle a pending civil suit pre-draft in March or April, it would show that he was aware there were pending allegations against him (criminal and civil)

and

That he (per Beane) did not disclose them to the NFL or to teams

 

Araiza's lawyer has been presenting his client as transparent, truthful, up-front, and timely in his disclosures with the Bills.

 

It would contradict that

 

Note that I don't believe it to be true.  I think Araiza knew there was an investigation last October, but hadn't heard anything (criminal or civil) in months at the time of the draft, and (somewhat naively) figured that it had been completed with no charges or other fallout.

 

His criminal attorney said Matt did not want to settle and that it was his parents who wanted to offer money. 

 

Also, if you violently gang rape a girl are you going to answer the phone and talk to her?  I feel like you wouldn't answer that phone call. Let alone warn her she may have an std.  Did the other two guys have the phone calls as well?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

It’s about time this was moved 

👏  👏 

 

thank you.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just a sidebar for reference to an earlier time. 

 

Here's the famous picture from the Kent State shootings in May of 1970:

Guess how old the female that's over the deceased is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you need help... She was 14 in this picture.  Yup 14!

1 minute ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

It’s about time this was moved 

👏  👏 

 

thank you.

 

Lightweight! 😉 😜 😘